Absolutely not training data no way no sir - eviltoast
  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    you can’t arbitrarily apply one set of rules to image generation by computer and another to one done by hand when their outputs are fundamentally the same.

    Why not? The arbitrating factor is the people involved in making the image. The inputs.

    • Daxtron2@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      What is your definition of ‘people involved in making the image’. People are involved whether or not you use AI. It’s the same argument traditional artists threw when digital art first started to come onto the scene. “your art is worthless and takes away from my real art because it was made with a computer”. There is a huge difference between someone posting raw gens and those that spend hours on pre and post processing to get a style consistent with the image in their head. That’s exactly what digital artists do. Your tools should get you 80% of the way to your intended product, the rest comes from you. Is that inherently without value just because a computer had a part in the process? Then you’d have to apply the same rules to all digital art made within the last 20 years. Adobe has been utilizing, admittedly worse versions, of AI in things like Photoshop for years. People just didn’t realize it until they got good enough to stand out.